To Save Local School, Parents Fight for New District

A group of parents who send their children to a Portland, Ore., high
school that is scheduled to close at the end of this school year say
they were angered and shocked by the city school board's decision last
summer to "take away" their local school.

The parents were so angry, in fact, that they mounted a legal effort
aimed at "taking back" Jackson High School and its feeder system of
elementary and middle schools from the Portland School District and
using the schools as the foundation for a new school district of their
own.

Last month, Oregon's attorney general gave the parents' secession
movement a substantial boost by issuing an opinion supporting their
breakaway attempt. And one Portland school official says that although
the secessionist group faces an uphill fight, "they certainly have a
chance of succeeding."

The battle currently taking shape in Portland is only one of what is
expected to be a growing number of lawsuits nationwide involving
parents and school boards over the touchy question of when--and when
not--to close a neighborhood school.

For the last decade, Portland's schools have been been subject to
the problems of declining enrollment and shrinking revenues "like urban
districts all over the country," explains Clint Thomas, the school
district's deputy superintendent for operations.

"Total enrollment in the city's high schools dropped from about
20,000 students 12 years ago to just about 15,000 this past year," Mr.
Thomas says.

"Also, we've been hit with the 'tripple whammy' in terms of
revenues," he adds. "We've seen cuts at both the federal and state
level, and local taxpayers have become increasingly reluctant to vote
for school millage increases."

Those factors caused Portland's school board in September 1980 to
appoint a 17-member citizens' advisory committee to develop guidelines
establishing the criteria for school closings, according to James
Bergman, chairman of the Jackson Education Coalition, the parents'
secessionist group.

In March 1981, he says, the advisory committee recommended that the
school board close two high schools--neither of which was Jackson--and
several elementary schools.

"In April 1981, the school board said that all schools were fair
game and started the review process over again," Mr. Bergman says.
"Eventually, they decided to close one high school and a number of
grade schools." Jackson, he says, was spared from closing once
again.

In mid-June, however, William Scott, chairman of the school board,
announced at a press conference that the board would have to close a
second high school.

"Another school-board member threatened to file a lawsuit because
both schools threatened with closure were predominantly black, and he
said that act would have been discriminatory," Mr. Bergman says.

On July 2, the school board held a special meeting, and when it
adjourned, three high schools had been placed on the closing list: the
two schools named by Mr. Scott the month before and the other, Jackson,
a predominantly white school.

School officials say that although Jackson--one of the city's
smallest high schools in terms of enrollment--had never been mentioned
in previous school-closing plans, population studies suggested that the
school would have been a prime candidate for closure within a few
years.

Mr. Bergman, however, says that he believes the issue was
predominantly one of racial parity.

"I guess they felt that if they [the school board] were going to
close two schools on the east side of town, they were obligated to
close one on the west side as well," he says. "No one disagrees that
Jackson has an outstanding record in the city's desegregation plan and
a fine academic program. The only thing the school had going against it
was the fact that it was small."

Parents frustrated by the school board's decision began holding
meetings "to look into our alternatives to reverse the decision to
close the school," Mr. Bergman says. It was during one of those
meetings that the group discovered that the state's 1957
school-reorganization act, which focused primarily on the consolidation
of school districts, permitted school-district secession as well.

The group then approached the Multnomah Educational Service District
Board, which oversees the activities of several school districts,
including Portland's, "and asked them to separate the Jackson feeder
pattern from the Portland district so we could establish a new school
district," Mr. Bergman says.

The regional school board requested that David Frohnmayer, the state
attorney general, review the request. In an opinion dated Feb. 10, Mr.
Frohnmayer ruled that the group's request was valid, but added that the
secession procedure would be complicated.

According to the attorney general's opinion, the regional board must
first agree to the wisdom of the secession proposal. If it agrees, it
must then develop a formal plan taking into account matters such as the
proposed new school district's potential tax base, the adequacy of its
academic program, and the location and condition of its physical
plant.

The plan would then be submitted to the state board of education for
its approval. If the state board agrees with the plan, residents living
in the new school district would vote on the secession proposal.

Finally, if the voters approve of the measure, the regional school
board would then act as arbiter between the old and new school
districts and apportion school property in an equitable manner.

Members of the parents' coalition say that they hope this process
can be completed by May 1, 1983, one year after Jackson's scheduled
closing date.

"Right now we're rather optimistic," Mr. Bergman says. "We think the
officials can be convinced that a smaller school district can be just
as efficient, or even more efficient, to operate and can deliver better
quality education than a larger district can."

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.